Racial profiling

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by contracycle

... but to make race the central criteria by which the category is established is not.

and, thus, is probably never done.

Besides, what kind of criteria is that going to be?

"Fellow Officers, we have been instructed to search all brown skinned or olive skinned male between 15 and 45 for proof of terrorist activities. Please proceed".

"Erm... Sir?"

"Yes?"

"Well, there is 10 of us."

"So?"

"Well, this is East London. We will never be finished by 5pm."

"Hmmm. Right, my good man. I will notify the CIC and see what he has to say..."

(Gilles, off the scene) "Extra criteria might be useful"...

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

and, thus, is probably never done.

Neverthelessa black MP been repeatedly stopped for driving a mercedes. I agree that is worthless to establish a profile that is esclusively race based, which is precisely why the proposition that it should be acceptable to do so is silly. It is not a serious proposition, merely a cover for racism.

[elalumno]

There is nevertheless a difference between "profiling" and "racial profiling".

Yes, but race can be a part of profiling, and in that sense, a good tool.

As you yourself pointed out, it is quite reasonable to include race in a description of a suspect, and it may also be valid for a category of suspects, but to make race the central criteria by which the category is established is not.

Overall, I might agree, but there are times where race can become central. In my days on patrol I always looked for things that did not belong. When I patrolled a predominantly anglo neighborhood and saw a vehicle with black males in it at 03:00, it was out of place. Likewise, when I patrolled the public housing complexes and saw a vehicle with white males in it at 03:00, it was out of place. In both cases race was the first criteria. In both cases I was looking for something that was out of place or that did not fit the norm of the area.

The problem is, as with any tool in law enforcement, it is subject to abuse by individual officers, or even at the department level.

[elalumno]

Neverthelessa black MP been repeatedly stopped for driving a mercedes.

Now there is a good example of the abuse.

I agree that is worthless to establish a profile that is esclusively race based, which is precisely why the proposition that it should be acceptable to do so is silly. It is not a serious proposition, merely a cover for racism.

Again, not all the time, and that is what makes this such a sensitive and difficult issue. See my prior examples.

[Carico]

As you yourself pointed out, it is quite reasonable to include race in a description of a suspect, and it may also be valid for a category of suspects, but to make race the central criteria by which the category is established is not.

Hello? The first thing that has to be ascertained is the gender and color of one's skin when describing a suspect. If not, then the police will be wasting so much time looking at black males if the suspect is a white female. That's why police investigators want to get as much information about a suspect as he can so he can narrow his search down.

But people's egos today are so fragile that they get offended if they look like a suspect. Well sorry, but the police aren't responsible for the low self-esteem of others. I'm not offended if white females commit crimes because I didn't commit the crime so I'm not guilty. Nor am I ashamed of being a white female. So I don't need to change criminal investigations because of my own paranoia or low self-esteem. Their job is to find a suspect as quickly and easily as possible. That's why this racial profiling baloney is "political correctness" to an irrational degree.

[elalumno]

Hello? The first thing that has to be ascertained is the gender and color of one's skin when describing a suspect.

Another falsehood.

That's why this racial profiling baloney is "political correctness" to an irrational degree.

It has been clearly demonstrated that you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about on this issue. So yoru claims of irrationality are reflective of your posts, not the issue being discussed.

[Carico]

[quote]

Originally Posted by elalumno

Another falsehood.

So then you want the police to ignore the color of a person's skin and look at all people as possible suspects. Is that correct? If so, then you prove that my OP is not a lie. It's also violating the privacy of many more people than limiting one's search to those who fit the description of a suspect.

You also advocate wasting billions of dollars of the tax-payers money, not to mention the length of time it will take to find a suspect since the police will be looking at people who nowhere near fit the description of the suspect. Since that's irrational, then it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Unbelievable.

[Zan de Man]

[elalumno]

So then you want the police to ignore the color of a person's skin and look at all people as possible suspects. Is that correct?

Nope. You just posted another lie.

If so, then you prove that my OP is not a lie.

What you have posted is about racial profiling is blatantly untrue. You have been provided with the corrections and have chosen to ignore them. Hence those blatant flasehoods have to be intentional.

It's also violating the privacy of many more people than limiting one's search to those who fit the description of a suspect.

You also advocate wasting billions of dollars of the tax-payers money,

That is another post which is nothing more than a lie.

not to mention the length of time it will take to find a suspect since the police will be looking at people who nowhere near fit the description of the suspect. Since that's irrational, then it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Unbelievable.

You can continue to make things up not in evidence, and then attack them, but that is the disingenous nature of your posts. It is also reflective of your total, 100% lack of knowledge on the issue.

You messages are proffering prejudice and bigotry as well as ignorance.

[elalumno]

Zan,

Buttered with salt popcorn I hope?

[Moral Fibre]

[Zan de Man]

Of course. Nothing healthy.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Carico

So then you want the police to ignore the color of a person's skin and look at all people as possible suspects. Is that correct? If so, then you prove that my OP is not a lie.

You also advocate wasting billions of dollars of the tax-payers money, not to mention the length of time it will take to find a suspect since the police will be looking at people who nowhere near fit the description of the suspect. Since that's irrational, then it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

When Carico first appeared and someone told me (offline), "that's another BT", I replied "At least, he can read and type".

I now wish to rescind that statement and present my excuses to BT. So there: BT, I was unfair to you. Carico is also entirely incapable of understanding what is being said to him. Please accept my sincerest excuses.

[Zan de Man]

Ooh. I think that post should go into the Hole.

[gurutoo]

You fuckin' guys are a like a flock of chickens just outside the hen-house , one of see's a "spot" on another chicken's head, then they all peck it to death.
Fuckers...

[Carico]

Originally Posted by elalumno

Nope. You just posted another lie.



What you have posted is about racial profiling is blatantly untrue. You have been provided with the corrections and have chosen to ignore them. Hence those blatant flasehoods have to be intentional.







That is another post which is nothing more than a lie.



You can continue to make things up not in evidence, and then attack them, but that is the disingenous nature of your posts. It is also reflective of your total, 100% lack of knowledge on the issue.

You messages are proffering prejudice and bigotry as well as ignorance.

So if all of my claimss about you are lies, then I assume you agree with me that an investigator should get a full description of a suspect, including race, and search members of that race for the suspect. Is that correct? if so, then why have you been arguing with me? That shows that it's you whose been lying.

[Moral Fibre]

I recently read an article in a Sunday paper the said the majority of prison inmates are over 5'9" and have dark hair.
So does that mean that it is perfectly acceptable only to stop/search tall people?

[elalumno]

[quote]So if all of my claimss about you are lies,[/quote[

Indeed, and I have a feeling the dishonest posts will continue.

then I assume you agree with me that an investigator should get a full description of a suspect, including race, and search members of that race for the suspect.

Case in point. This has been explained to you. That is not considered racial profiling and is an accepted and standard practice in law enforcement.

Is that correct? if so, then why have you been arguing with me? That shows that it's you whose been lying.

It really doesn't surprise me that you continue the disingenuos posts and repeating the same lie. One would think that as a self proclaimed christian you would abide by the "thous shall not lie" comandment, but that you don't doens't surprise me either.

Your entire argument is based on an intentionally false asessment of what racial profiling is and you continue that intentionally false asessment despite proof otherwise.

[ninjalooter1701]

You guys really need to be nice to the conservative posters.